Should this, the stupid dwarf trick article, Âsax, and Cacame Awemedinade be considered D for Dwarf? While the latter two could be considered included by the definition as being "references to the forum", I'd argue that none of these really fit the criteria. All of these articles are more or less seriously written and, barring the last part of this article about "winning", they don't include any content that's non-canon to the game itself either (like the extra lore on the anvil article). I'd argue, as the D for Dwarf marks jokes, references, and non-canon stories, these articles do not qualify for the tag. Contrast with the goblin christmas article that fulfills the criteria by being a joke. It also poses a problem as the real albeit jokingly put forth info in this article is easily conflicted with the very not real "winning" part, which normally would qualify for the tagging.
Now, these articles are all a bit meta, a bit more relaxed, and don't quite fit in with the rest of the wiki, so instead of removing the tag entirely for these, I propose that we either add a new tag, or redefine or otherwise clarify in which way the D for Dwarf tag is being used for each instance.
- So you want to remove the "D is for Dwarf" tag and add an "F is for not Fitting with the rest of the wiki" tag instead? I would rather expand the scope of "D is for Dwarf" to include "meta, relaxed, and historic" pages (which, apparently, has already been done in spite of the template text). My impression is that the "D is for Dwarf" template exists as a compromise, to forestall the deletionist/inclusionist battles that occur over "unencyclopaedic" content on other wikis. In that vein all but the stupid dwarf trick article seem appropriately tagged. Feel free to update the template text to more broadly include characteristics beyond "humour: witty, non-witty, bad, etc.". --Loci (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)